• April 24, 2015

White Mountain Independent

Tip: Use advanced search for extended search features and options.

From other pens Private property in the era of the American police state

Posted: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 5:00 am

If the government can tell you what you can and cannot do within the privacy of your home, whether it relates to what you eat, what you smoke or whom you love, you no longer have any rights whatsoever within your home.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?



Choose an online service.

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.


  • pretty girl posted at 6:19 am on Tue, Dec 17, 2013.

    pretty girl Posts: 99

    Very well said, Mr. Whitehead. An eye opener. [thumbup]

  • ACIPRA posted at 6:35 am on Tue, Dec 17, 2013.

    ACIPRA Posts: 1000

    What do you mean by this statement?
    "This is what a world without the Fourth Amendment looks like, where the lines between private and public property have been so blurred that private property is reduced to little more than something the government can use to control, manipulate and harass you to suit its own purposes, and you the homeowner and citizen have been reduced to little more than a tenant or serf in bondage to an inflexible landlord."

    ALREADY like that in Apache County where they have violated the due process of "LITERALLY HUNDREDS" private property owners, according to the Community development directors words in a email to the Apache County Attorney. Where he also said,' I don't think we violated anyone's rights".... WHAT you don't think? Thats right nobody was thinking when they continued to violated the private property owners rights to this very day.
    And if the Apache County officials had never violated the WMI's right to free press we the people would be able to read about all this as news.[sad]
    Where is Warnicks line on the 4th?

  • RYAN M A posted at 7:27 am on Tue, Dec 17, 2013.

    RYAN M A Posts: 1445

    We have not been the owner of our private property since the introduction of property tax. We merely lease the land yearly for a fee, from the government. Don't pay your property taxes and see what happens to the land you think you own.

  • Gerald M posted at 8:06 am on Tue, Dec 17, 2013.

    Gerald M Posts: 2

    Good article. Thanks.

  • entmanray posted at 8:21 am on Tue, Dec 17, 2013.

    entmanray Posts: 332

    Have another glass of paranoia punch.

  • jmeinaz posted at 9:41 am on Tue, Dec 17, 2013.

    jmeinaz Posts: 124

    As it has been said just because I am paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me. This is a well thought out and well written opinion piece.
    BTW, I was just reading that a man was sited for washing his car on his own property because it could be seen from the street. The cop told him if it could be seen from the street it was public property.

  • Kahuna posted at 12:37 pm on Tue, Dec 17, 2013.

    Kahuna Posts: 370

    Allow me to summarize:
    By looking serious for the camera, I hope to instill much fear and paranoia in you.

    Buy my book.
    Buy my book
    Buy my book

  • juliussr posted at 1:18 pm on Tue, Dec 17, 2013.

    juliussr Posts: 527

    what was in your brownies

  • che guevara posted at 1:49 pm on Tue, Dec 17, 2013.

    che guevara Posts: 890

    The reality is that you own absolutely nothing except for the shirt on your back and your self-respect . I know that I have posted this before , but I feel compelled to post this again : All property ownership is conditional at best , and is little more than an illusion of ownership that goes back to ancient Babylonian Law that upheld the belief in the Divine Right of Kings . Fee Simple " ownership " of Real Estate ( Royal Estate actually ) is a classic example of the contractual agreement of habitation you share on the piece of property and house that you falsely believe that you own . Under the ruse of Eminent Domain , the gloves come off and the illusion is exposed for what it truly is . In essence , the King / Bankers and their Government , own everything and your residence on the piece of the Royal Estate / Real Estate is subject to payment of liens , taxes and adherence to the provisional usage of " your property " , zoning laws and right - of - way easements are two examples , along with payment of the King's taxes levied . Failure to comply will result in the expulsion of the slave from his little piece of the Royal Estate . If you look at the Deed to the property you falsely believe that you own, you will see that you are always named as being the Tenant of the property , not the Owner . Again because under Babylonian Law , the foundation of Western Law , you are considered to be a slave and slaves can not own property . In the ancient near east the Kings instituted the Office of the Sharif ( as in Omar Sharif ) to be the strong-arm of the Royal tax collectors , this office today is known as you County Sheriff / Sharif Department . If you want to see them in action then don't pay your taxes to the King . They will prohibit you from entering the property and kill you if you put up enough resistance , all to protect the interests of the King / Bankers . In view of all this , why should there be any hesitation by the authorities to smash down your door for any suspected wrong-doing . You are seen as little more than a squatter anyhow .

    Mr. Whitehead's concept of a Second American Revolution is nice , but most likely too far past the point of ever gaining any meaningful momentum as like livestock , the majority of the population has been spiritually gelded and hammered into submission in a most insidious and clever fashion . The Police State and the propaganda giving it is buoyancy may well be the opus magnum of the ruling elite being rolled out before our very eyes . In the past despotism was stark and brutal and made no illusions about it's intent . The 20 th century brought about the societal models of Communism and Fascism , both creations of the ruling elite , along with the devastating wars fought for and against these creations , and financed by the ruling elite . What is gradually emerging now is a precision , fine-tuned form of soft tyranny that will make the proto-types of 20 th century , Communism and Fascism , look like rough-hewn , hand-whittled 2X4 models .

    The dynamics that John Steinbeck so profoundly related in his masterpiece book , The Grapes of Wrath , remains an inspiration for me . When the ruling oligarchy steals everything they can get their grubby paws on , and the majority are left without , the only possible solution is indeed a revolution of some sort , as injustice does will only serve to fertilize the soil from which the vintage of the grapes of wrath will be squeezed from .

  • wes alderson posted at 2:56 pm on Tue, Dec 17, 2013.

    wes alderson Posts: 9134

    John Whitehead is one of the foremost Syndicated Authors on subjects of government, constitution, law, ethics, and economics.

    Every statement he made in this article has already been verified as true in mainstream news. He does a great job of adding the results of these facts together and showing us the perils we live under. This is not at all paranoid.

    If I were in his position, I would hype my own book too - Publishers tell writers to do exactly that.

    Thank you, Mr Whitehead, for a fine piece of work.

  • Retired Captain posted at 3:37 pm on Tue, Dec 17, 2013.

    Retired Captain Posts: 645

    An excellent and factual article/editorial.

    As expected, there are always govt-worshiping sycophants who totter in and attempt to marginalize or minimize any possible effect of such truth.

    One need only ponder that to realize the insidious and subversive nature of such people.

    In my opinion, they need to be outed for exactly what they are what what it actually is that their advocacy and actions facilitate.

    Collectivist-gerbils, busy gnawing away at Liberty and the Republic.

  • parkwmi posted at 9:59 pm on Tue, Dec 17, 2013.

    parkwmi Posts: 67

    "So where do we begin? How do we go about wresting back control over our freedoms and our lives in the face of such seemingly insurmountable odds?"

    Sounds like a job for a community organizer.

  • che guevara posted at 10:14 pm on Tue, Dec 17, 2013.

    che guevara Posts: 890

    Dear WMI ; what happened to the posting that I submitted earlier this afternoon ?

  • ArizAl posted at 9:04 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    ArizAl Posts: 3986

    Gerbils are better than lemmings....lemmings are delusional to the very end.[beam]

  • TN4994 posted at 11:09 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    TN4994 Posts: 1793

    Hmmn, Gerbils don't play follow the leader?

    And how many have decided to sign away their rights to a HOA?

  • BillyD43 posted at 12:27 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    BillyD43 Posts: 1227

    Wes, Mr. Whitehead is nothing more than a giant incubus to the brothers Koch and their AFP and other organizations. Main stream media - FOX News - bwahahahahahahaha! I leave you and the other lemmings to go over the cliff.

  • ronzim posted at 1:44 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    ronzim Posts: 2894

    Mr. Whitehead scatters a few kernels of corn in the silo of information trying to convince us that they represent the general case. That is called conflation. On the other hand, there are, in my opinion, excesses on the part of those who work for us.

    First, as usual, we have intense criticism with no specific prescriptions as to how problems might be solved, except by a second revolution. From the time that property became ownable, the erosion of absolute property rights was in place. In Texas, for example, there is no state income tax. One result is that property taxes are sky high. Someone has to make up the government revenue not generated by an income tax. And that someone is disproportionately the low income homeowners. I would much prefer to do away with residential property taxes up to a negotiated maximum, and make up he revenue by progressive income taxes.

    Private property rights must always be subordinated to the good of the community as that good isdefined by the majority therein. Zoning laws and building codes serve important purposes having to do with public safety and property values of neighbors.

    On the other hand, the NSA has clearly exceeded its remit owing to the scope and intensity of its snooping. In my opinion, the NSA stands in open and notorious violation of the fourth amendment and, perhaps, even its own animating statute. There are similar problems with indefinite retention and even killing people without recourse to the rule of law, which should concern everyone.

    Moreover, in more than thirty states, republican politicians are engaged in a repugnant effort to disenfranchise adverse voters since the gutting of the VRA. In other states, those folks are involved in open defiance of Roe v. Wade by technical bans on women's' health clinics even though some of them perform almost no abortions at all.

    The answers to these and other problems lies in electing public officials who will do the work of the American people according to the rule of law, majority vote and universal suffrage.

  • ACIPRA posted at 4:03 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    ACIPRA Posts: 1000

    What I fail to understand is why all the folks commenting never look at the local level government and how it is continually violating the people rights and the private property owners rights. If you cannot fix anything at the local level just what chance do you have at the federal level?[wink][wink][wink]
    Look and work on a closer level to your own issues and start making the changes needs here at home to give you experience in how to deal with the federal level.[beam]

  • ACIPRA posted at 4:06 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    ACIPRA Posts: 1000

    look at it this way in baseball the ballplayers start out in the minor league and have to work at it to prove they can move up to the big league..
    Yet every person commenting has all the fixes for the feds and nothing for the local level.. [wink][wink]

  • wesalderson posted at 5:15 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    wesalderson Posts: 118

    Dang ! Mr. Whitehead used another Big Word I don't know the meaning of. "Syncophant."

    I always thought that was an elephant who is sinking into quicksand.

    Ron? What's the word mean?

  • Retired Captain posted at 5:37 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Retired Captain Posts: 645

    Strike up 'The Internationale', ronzim is triumphantly goose-stepping through.

    His advocacy on private property rights, property taxes, building codes and zoning, fit nicely in practice with Plank #1 of the Communist Manifesto.

    Of course, he advocates directly for Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto.

    I expect it is likely that in some form or fashion this particular collectivist also supports the general principle and practice of Plank #5, Plank #6 and Plank #10...perhaps others.

    Just an observation.........Socialism and Communism are merely two of a number of manifestations of the Ethic and Philosophy of Collectivism.

    The 'greater good', altruism, 'fairness via govt', 'categorizations and classes' of people into groups, 'group rights', private property rights and individual liberty must be 'suborned to the good of the community', 'majority rule' and on and on and on......All are classic and direct concepts and indicators of a collectivist/statist.

  • Charos posted at 8:17 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Charos Posts: 556

    Awwww, the white man's fweedoms awe in dangew. Jeez, how long did it take for him to give freedom to women, then minorities?

    The truth is Americans have never really been "free". Maybe for a brief time after the Revolution, but technically there has never been full freedom.

    I explain that in my new book, "The Illusion of Freedom and the Wet Dreams of Delusional Nut Jobs". Order on Amazon before X-mas, and receive 10% off.

  • RYAN M A posted at 8:39 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    RYAN M A Posts: 1445

    A most common conclusion reached by the leftists, is that the righties offer no solutions. When in reality, the righties always offer the same solution (less government and more freedom), the lefties just don't like it because it is diametrically opposed to their position of government fixing and correcting everything.

    On a separate note, I agree with RonZ in the abolishment of Property tax, but would replace that with consumptive taxation. As well, I would abolish vehicle registration taxes, and place that in a consumptive fashion on the cost of a gallon of gas.

  • che guevara posted at 9:01 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    che guevara Posts: 890

    Well Charos I hate to break it to you , but there was never really a true American Revolution . What actually took place was nothing more than a transfer of power from one ruling aristocracy to another . The actions and policies carried out in America by the British Crown under the guise of the new-found corporation called the United States of America were taken directly out of the Anglo establishment playbook . Genocide , slavery , caste system and all . Freedom is indeed a highly subjective term at best . When the native peoples were slaughtered and driven off of their ancestral lands the white establishment believed that this was " for the greater good " , the psychosis of slavery was viewed as being for the greater good also . Thank God Manifest Destiny existed or else the world might think America to be brutal and biased . History and the Laws that govern the subjects are always written by the victors .

    In all fairness however , there is a degree of validity to the assertion made above by ronzim . Zoning regulations and building codes do indeed help maintain property values and prevent the intrusion of unharmonious elements into a neighborhood or district . This lends further credence to my statement that as an individual subject , you do not enjoy full ownership and usage of the property you have been fooled into believing is yours . In Ron's community of Scottsdale for example , such regulations are indeed seen as necessary because it maintains the up-scale property values and severely limits who may reside there . Economic Obsolesence , or more simply put , the negative impact against a property's value due to factors outside of the boundries of the said property , tend to become more of an issue as one ascends the socio - economic ladder . Furthermore , zoning laws and building codes have been abused in many cases and can actually morph into Fascist style intrusion on ' your " property . Case in point ; several years ago here in Lakeside , I was helping my neighbor build a Green House on " his " property . This was a semi subterranean design and required that after excavating we then lay eight rows of concrete block before constructing the roof . My neighbor was sure that he acquired , and paid for , the permit to improve " his " property . When we reached the final stages of construction some jack a** from the Town came over and said that the height of the Green House wall was too high and that we now needed to knock off two of the rows of concrete blocks of face the consequences . I guess that this was for the greater good in some odd sort of way . [wink] In any event , Ron's point is well taken , but is most certainly not an absolute and is highly subject to interpretation and abuses depending upon what side of the issue one stands and how much money and power they possess . Then again , isn't that the American way anyhow .

    One final thought ; the hope that the answers to these problems will be found by " electing public officials who will do the work of the American people according to the rule of law ..." , falls into the category of dreams that Charos so colorfully described in his posting above ( # 361 ) .

    By the way Charos , would you be so kind as to give me the ISBN number so that I might have an easier time ordering your book this afternoon from the Bookworm here in Lakeside .

  • wes alderson posted at 12:45 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    wes alderson Posts: 9134


    I'm glad to see more Apache County comments in WMI's Opinion Section. By your posting on both National roblems and County Situations, you are placing more emphsis on your county.

    This will also make it easier for reporters to focus in on your area.


  • ACIPRA posted at 1:18 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    ACIPRA Posts: 1000

    "This will also make it easier for reporters to focus in on your area."[sad]

    That would require the WMI to hire a reporter in the Apache county Area first not a publicist issuing press releases.[wink]

  • TN4994 posted at 3:04 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    TN4994 Posts: 1793

    Che: What is really nice about building codes are that they are there to protect the potential buyer and tell the contractor what the minimums are.
    Add to that the developers that influence the code to allow substandard materials and have a licensed on-site inspector (paid buy the contractor); then "let the buyer beware" comes into play.
    But some are fortunate enough to have an old bit of land with a Baronial Deed or Spanish Parcel, that is not subject to property tax. The problem is that if the owners want to mortgage the land, then they have to sign away the property, incorporating it into the county/state.

  • ronzim posted at 4:41 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    ronzim Posts: 2894

    Che: The crowd cheers. One of your best. Here in the valley, the zoning and building codes are promulgated by the county, just as they are elsewhere. This means that they apply to everyone. But if that were true, there would not be any dangerously run-down properties which are eyesores to many affluent, but only dramatize for me the circumstances from which I arose. The crime of it is that there are so many poor and sick and disabled people in America that building and zoning codes really have no meaning in their neighborhoods.

    If one excludes the work done by such organizations as Habitat for Humanity, the deteriorating properties which are so prevalent reflect not only the tragic consequences of low income homeowners but include the dominance of predatory landlords who both exploit and contribute to poverty by the hour.

    That is why I favor major reforms in the inequalities of income and wealth (yes, through redistribution) which alone can alleviate not only these problems, but the entire vast panoply of social failures attributable directly to them. Every neighborhood can be as clean, attractive and safe as my own. We need only the will to do it.

  • ronzim posted at 4:59 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    ronzim Posts: 2894

    Wes: Psycho - Phanned: The action of a seriously disturbed Tea Party member who is trying desperately to herd the Obamas back to Africa by waiving birth certificates at them.

  • Retired Captain posted at 6:06 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Retired Captain Posts: 645

    LOL...the assisted and self unmasking of the comrade-collectivist, continues.

    Classic stuff.

  • che guevara posted at 7:48 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    che guevara Posts: 890

    Ron , my sentiments exactly . You are an artistic blending of intelligence and compassion and deep understanding . Too bad you never ran for public office . [smile]

  • ArizAl posted at 8:42 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    ArizAl Posts: 3986

    NEWS<NEWS<NEWS ! Allowing the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy a year ago did not result in a loss of jobs,quite the contrary, it has resulted in the best job creation numbers in years,the stock market breaking records, and manufacturering picking up. Seems like the Liberal Collectivists have proven the right wing nut job collectivists wrong again. Will they ever learn?

  • ArizAl posted at 9:16 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    ArizAl Posts: 3986

    Another stochastic implication by right wing nut? My,My!

  • ronzim posted at 4:25 pm on Fri, Dec 20, 2013.

    ronzim Posts: 2894

    Al: Right again! What is more, the expiry of those tax cuts has made a large contribution to the more than 50% deficit reduction during the last five years. I have the good fortune to be a father whose children actually listen to him and act accordingly. I am now advising my family that I strongly expect an extended period of significant economic growth beginning in 2014. We will see.

    Che: At least, I do make a real pest of myself for those who have.

  • ACIPRA posted at 3:50 am on Sat, Dec 21, 2013.

    ACIPRA Posts: 1000

    Under Arizona statutes, Building codes can be exempted in rural areas like the major parts of southern Apache County.

    11-861. Adoption of codes by reference; limitations; method of adoption

    A. In any county that has adopted zoning pursuant to this chapter, the board of supervisors may adopt and enforce, for the unincorporated areas of the county so zoned, a building code and other related codes to regulate the quality, type of material and workmanship of all aspects of construction of buildings or structures, except that the board may authorize that areas zoned rural or unclassified may be exempt from the provisions of the code adopted. Such codes may be adopted by reference after notice and hearings before the county planning and zoning commission and board of supervisors as provided in this chapter for amendments to the zoning ordinance of the county.

    And not required at all on the Indian reservations. Yet in Apache County where we have two supervisor from exempt districts and only one from a district that building codes could apply. And yet we are ruled by excessive zoning and codes all adopted with approval of two supervisors voting for something that never affects any of the constituencies in their districts. Is that fair legal or constitutional? I do not think so.

    Then add that in Apache County the Community development department and CA failure to have ever read what they adopted and the ir failure to allow any due process rights in they way they have been enforcing the zoning ordinance and building ordinances. Failures related to the public due process rights related to the published notice and public hearing since 1985.

    Apache County has been violating the private property owners rights since they began illegally enforcing anything related to land use in this county.[wink]

  • ronzim posted at 3:10 pm on Sun, Dec 22, 2013.

    ronzim Posts: 2894

    Can anyone cite any court case where a current zoning/BC law, rule or regulation has been ruled unconstitutional? I thought not. A dry well for ten years.

  • ACIPRA posted at 4:47 am on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    ACIPRA Posts: 1000

    OH,OH I can I can list so many it would make your head spin. Or you could just google the question asked and see how many show up.
    But for the one example http://theadvocate.com/home/6639463-125/single-family-zoning-restrictions-lifted

    Now to educate such smart folks. Most constitutional violations related to zoning and Building codes are civil rights violation of the private property owners due process rights. Either through the adoption/amendment process ie: failure to properly notice, issues with hearing and or enforcement violations. Which can lead to failures to follow appeals and or hearing processes of due process law.
    Most case law related to zoning issues come from the governments failure to follow the rules when creating and or making changes to zoning and or building ordinances.
    So many folks have never read and or taken any time to really understand the processes of how zoning comes to be and if it was ever legally adopted to grant them the power to enforce.
    And up here in Navajo and Apache County's you would be surprised I doubt most would meet the procedural requirements of statute to be legal. Not all but most due to one important issue nobody has ever noticed up here until I started pointing it out the types of published notices being placed in this very newspaper fails to meet Arizona statutory requirements of law and the contracts this paper has with most local governments.[wink]

  • ronzim posted at 12:12 pm on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    ronzim Posts: 2894

    ACIPRA: I knew someone would stick a hoof in my little trap. Remember, I specified a CURRENT law. The general claim here is that the government violates the constitution by passing any such laws because they violate the absolute prerogatives of private property rights. There have, of course, been many laws, regulations, rules and policies of every level of government which have been set aside. That even includes referenda approved by a majority of voters. Just a couple of days ago, a federal judge ruled that Utah's ban on same sex marriage, passed by the majority of Utah voters, is unconstitutional.

    The point is that every law, rule, regulation and policy of every jurisdiction is presumptively constitutional until a court rules otherwise. On those occasions when a law is overturned, it is no longer current. It is for the courts to decide, not individuals or groups of private citizens. Every private claim of unconstitutionality is invalid until backed by a court decision. This system works.

  • Retired Captain posted at 1:14 pm on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    Retired Captain Posts: 645

    Once again, comrade-ronzim retreats to the predictable yet scant cover of 'the courts', as 'proof' of the constitutionality of clearly unconstitutional federal government actions.

    It seems as if, to the comrade, that as long as a 'court' doesn't rule something as unconstitutional, then it is proper and just be adhered to and that the matter is closed.

    As an example of clear textual anti/unconstitutionality....

    The subversive Patriot Act (court sanctioned) allows certain fed-gov agents to essentially write, approve and serve their own warrants and to even 'sneak and peek' where a search is done without any knowledge of it by 'the target'.

    The intrusive and tyrannical NSA actions (court approved) which fundamentally abrogate portions of the Bill of Rights.

    The War Powers Act (court approved) which directly abrogates a direct power and duty of Congress, that being the power, duty and responsibility to declare war.

    The use of the military in the 'police-action' slaughter of Americans carried out in Waco.

    The DHS declared 'Constitution-free zone', or as they term it, the 'extended border' or the 'functional equivalent border', wherein they claim they are empowered to conduct certain 'warrantless searches', primarily of electronic devices, where thusfar the courts have sanctioned 'reasonable suspicion' as sufficient for a warrantless search within this 100 mile inland border zone, rather than what Amendment IV clearly mandates, that being:

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Of course, the 'courts' have repeatedly ruled against and abrogated the explicit text of this amendment, as well as the others.

    The subversive NDAA (court approved/sanctioned) which furthers the subversive AUMF (also court approved) wherein the United States is considered part of the battlefield in the faux 'war on terror' and where it is claimed that the federal government has the authority and power to declare an American citizen an 'enemy combatant' or a 'non person' and to scoop them up and whisk them away (even from US soil) to be held without charge and sans fundamental enumerated constitutional protections.

    This same treasonous NDAA (court sanctioned) purports to authorize and American citizen, even on American soil, to be declared a terrorist or an enemy combatant and subsequently assassinated in direct violation of the Constitution.

    As has been previously stated, the examples of federal government abrogations of the Constitution are legion. These are merely some of the most recent and most 'in the public eye' examples.

    The government has abrogated any semblance of the 'rule of law' and the diseased-branch of government that is 'the courts' have proven to be directly complicit in making a mockery of 'the rule of law'.

    The exemplars listed are merely a small sample of over a century of abrogations, with a major acceleration in the past 80 years, most recently under 'New World Order' Bush the Elder, Fellow-Traveler Slick Willie Klintoon, GW 'Puffy' Bush, the Holy Terror-Warrior King and now the clownish would-be tyrant and 'Marxist-Collectivist', Buffoon Obama.

    Frankly, I hold such puppet-traitors in contempt and revile them just as I do those who enable, support and/or provide cover, rationalization or justification for what they carry out (that is you and those like you) in the name of Globalist-Collectivism and the Cabal that drives it.

    Clear enough?

  • ACIPRA posted at 1:41 pm on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    ACIPRA Posts: 1000


  • ronzim posted at 1:55 pm on Thu, Dec 26, 2013.

    ronzim Posts: 2894

    We are a nation of laws. If that enterprise does not prevail, over time, the alternative is nihilism and anarchy. Our system of jurisprudence is not perfect because it is operated by human beings.

    We have here the usual criticism of our court system based, not on the fact of unconstitutionality, but upon the personal disagreement of one or more parties, with a law, rule, regulation or policy of some level of government. In some cases, that extends even to laws which have already been ruled on. I repeat, individual citizens and groups of citizens, are not empowered to interpret the constitution for anyone other then themselves - and that is their frustration.

    It is especially noteworthy that these critics offer no alternative to our current system other then an impossible prescription for government by constitutional amendment.
    By what means are we to resolve disputes as to the meaning of the constitution, if not by law? They offer nothing. Note also, the absolutism with which various disputed laws are dealt. It is their interpretation and theirs alone which is right. In short, these critics arrogate unto themselves a self-delusional level of constitutional expertise which exceeds that of our most educated and experienced constitutional jurists.

    If I stand in opposition to a SCOTUS ruling, which I do, my courses of action are:
    1. Work to elect officials who will appoint other-minded judges.
    2. Work to obtain a repeal of the law.
    3. Work to amend the constitution to overturn the disagreeable ruling.

    I do all of these things but I also adhere to those rulings as the supreme law of the land until they can be changed. I do not make open declarations of unconstitutionality based upon my own opinions.

  • Retired Captain posted at 8:26 pm on Thu, Dec 26, 2013.

    Retired Captain Posts: 645

    It is always amusing to see the contortions that a collectivist will go through to try to defend the constitutionally-indefensible.

    It seems incomprehensible that some men are not able to read the Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, and then use the clear text to measure acts/actions of government and subsequently either not admit or not see clear and glaring unconstitutionality and chicanery, without the desperate need for lawyerization and other forms of weasel-speak.

    The entire house of cards on which this particular collectivist rests his trust and his 'interpretation' on, is the result of over a century of federal courts 'judicial review' and 'precedent' on issues of constitutionality, which is a 'power' not enumerated in the Constitution or provided to the Supreme Court and therefore, a usurpation.

    This house of cards rests on 'case law', e.g., 'precedent/stare decisis', which takes a previous ruling, views it as 'a rule' and uses and builds upon that, regardless of whether it was constitutionally flawed or directly abrogating some provision of the Constitution.

    In the interest of not reinventing the wheel on these matters, I will C&P some commentary from Heritage.org related to the role of the courts in a Constitutional Republic, which at least brings the concept back to constitutional-sanity.

    I will decline at this time to discuss the necessary and proper role of nullification, for another time.


    "...... Federal courts, for example, can hear only “cases or controversies”: they cannot issue advisory opinions. The courts cannot expound on a law of their choosing or at the request of even the President himself, but must wait for a genuine case between actual aggrieved parties to be properly presented to the court.

    In explaining judicial power under the Constitution, Hamilton noted that the courts would have the authority to determine whether laws passed by the legislature were consistent with the fundamental and superior law of the Constitution. If a law was contrary to the Constitution, then it was void. Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court agreed, famously announcing its authority to rule on the validity of laws—known as judicial review—in the case of Marbury v. Madison. In weighing the validity of a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is....."

    "...The other branches of government are also legitimately responsible for interpreting the Constitution. The President, for example, takes an oath to support the Constitution, and carries out this oath by determining which laws to sign. While the President may sign or veto legislation for political or policy reasons, the President faithfully discharges his oath by vetoing legislation if he believes that it would violate the Constitution. If the law was signed by one of his predecessors, a President may engage in constitutional interpretation by choosing not to enforce it if he believes it to be unconstitutional....."

    ".......Thus, President Thomas Jefferson ordered his Attorney General not to enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts because he believed that they violated the First Amendment. Jefferson did this even though some courts had held that the Acts were constitutional. Jefferson’s action is an early practical example of the President using his independent role and judgment to interpret the Constitution.

    Members of Congress also take an oath to support the Constitution. Congress interprets the Constitution by deciding which laws to enact. Congress may (and does) choose to enact or reject legislation for political or policy reasons, but when its Members reject legislation that would violate the Constitution, they are acting in accordance with their oaths......."

    ".....That is how our system is supposed to work. But over time, the Supreme Court has grabbed power by declaring that “the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.” The Supreme Court has even gone so far as to declare that its decisions that interpret the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.

    Unfortunately, the political branches have largely acceded to these bloated claims...."

    "....The federal courts have not only grabbed power. They have also changed how judges carry out one of the core function of the judiciary: interpreting laws. The proper role of a judge in a constitutional republic is a modest one. Ours is a government of laws and not men. This basic truth requires that disputes be adjudicated based on what the law actually says, rather than the whims of judges.

    In determining whether a contested law is consistent with the Constitution, judges act within their proper judicial power when they give effect to the original public meaning of the words of the law and the Constitution. This necessarily means that judges acting in accordance with their constitutional duties will at times uphold laws that may be bad policy, and strike down laws that may be good policy. This is because judicial review requires the judge to determine not whether the law leads to good or bad results, but whether the law violates the Constitution.

    In recent decades, judges have engaged in judicial activism, deciding cases according to their own policy preferences rather than by applying the law impartially according to its original public meaning. They have become enamored of ideas like “living constitutionalism,” the theory that the Constitution evolves and changes not through the amendment process set out in the Constitution itself, but as a result of the decisions of judges who supposedly serve as the supreme social arbiters. They have drawn on external sources like foreign laws when the outcome they desired did not comport with the original public meaning of the law under review...."

    "...Liberal activist Justice William Brennan famously said that “With five votes you can do anything around here”—five votes being a majority of the Supreme Court. Living up to Brennan’s boast, the federal courts have awarded the federal government power to regulate matters well beyond its constitutional authority. The courts themselves have taken over school systems and prisons for decades at a time, created new rights found nowhere in the Constitution....."

    Lots of words above, but the bottom line is that the idea that a SCROTUS ruling becomes the 'supreme law of the land', is a fallacy and a power not provided by the Constitution.

    Therefore, the courts can of course rule on the constitutionality of a law passed, when the case meets the constitutional criteria to come before the courts.

    That ruling is not then the 'supreme law of the land'. It is merely the courts determination on that specific case and when, not if, such a ruling that is unconstitutional occurs, the POTUS, the Congress, the States (can refuse to enforce or implement) and/or the People can view it as being null and void for all practical purposes and by removing the insidious results of 'case law' on such issues of constitutionality, the issue can and likely will arise again in another legitimate case at some point and can then be ruled upon based on the actual Constitution, rather than via politics, political appointment, collectivist-ideology, or other forms of judicial activism.

    Simple stuff, really....and as intended.

  • ArizAl posted at 10:05 am on Fri, Dec 27, 2013.

    ArizAl Posts: 3986

    PSSST!, Mr. social Anarchist, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes, that empowers, the anti-american right wingnut group of extremists, the Heritage Foundation to interpret the constitutionality of laws.

    Their name appears nowhere in Article 3 of the Constitution which grants the Judicial powers to the Supreme Court. " The judicial power shall extend to all Cases, in law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,the laws of the United States,.........."

    It appears that Ron is correct in this case and the Captain bites the dust again.

    OHH I forgot, the Heritage Foundation was the principle originator of having a mandate to buy health insurance.

  • Tractornuts posted at 5:54 pm on Fri, Dec 27, 2013.

    Tractornuts Posts: 33

    What was this article about again? It appears some have gone off the deep end Oh thats right the over stepping of Government and how it affects everybody and their property rights, I recommend taking our government back by using the same tactics as our opposition Start with one elected official and work toward one city then one county then one state etc... and stop wasting our time arguing over semantics, this is an election year so put up or shut up! [beam][beam][beam][beam]


A subscription service is required to post comments.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
  • 2 Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness acounts, the history behind an article.

Show Low, AZ

Current Conditions

Broken Clouds
Humidity: 62%
Winds: SSW at 21mph
Feels Like: 39°

Your Extended Forecast


High 53°/Low 36°
Mostly clear


High 59°/Low 34°
Windy with times of sun and clouds


High 48°/Low 31°
Cloudy with showers and thunderstorms


High 62°/Low 36°
Times of sun and clouds